A trial court wrongly dismissed condo buyers’ claims for return of excess deposits on res judicata grounds even though it called the result “unfair and inequitable,” the Third District Court of Appeal held on October 14, 2026. In Pilac Management, Ltd. v. Parque Towers Developers, LLC, No. 3D25-1698, Judge Logue wrote for a panel that included Judges Lindsey and Gooden. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The opinion is not final until any timely rehearing motion is decided.
The deposits
Five sets of buyers contracted to buy pre-construction units from the developer. Under their agreements, if a buyer defaulted after paying 15 percent of the price, the developer had to refund anything above 15 percent or above its own damages, whichever was greater. The buyers first won judgments for return of their entire deposits on the theory that the developer finished late. In 2024 the Third District reversed in part, holding the agreements did not require completion by a date certain. Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 395 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
The buyers then filed new actions for breach of contract and statutory rescission. They alleged that the developer had resold the five units for a total of $6,440,000, more than the original total contract price of $6,265,000, while keeping their deposits of $3,144,500. The trial court dismissed with prejudice. It wrote that it “would appear unfair and inequitable” for the developer to keep all the deposits “when the contract between the parties appears to express otherwise,” but held res judicata barred the claims.
The holding
The Third District said the trial judge “overlooked the line of authority that allows res judicata to be overridden when its mechanical application would work an injustice.” It noted “some cloud on the record” about whether all four identities required for res judicata were present, because the buyers’ win on the developer’s counterclaim was never appealed. But it did not need to resolve that. The Florida Supreme Court “has long recognized that res judicata will not be invoked where it would defeat the ends of justice,” it wrote, citing State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003), and deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1973).
“Under the facts and circumstances of this case,” the court held, applying res judicata “would unjustly frustrate the express bargain reached by the purchasers and developer.” It also cited its earlier statement in Hess v. PMG-S2 Sunny Isles, LLC, 349 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), that the interests of justice are implicated when a party seeks to evade parts of a purchase agreement and obtain a windfall.
What the court did not decide
The court did not say how much, if anything, the buyers will recover. It reversed the dismissal and sent the cases back. Whether the developer’s damages reduce the refunds, and by how much, remains for the trial court.
The takeaway
Res judicata is not absolute in Florida. This opinion applies the “ends of justice” exception to a contract dispute where, on the buyers’ allegations, the seller kept the deposits and resold the property at or above the original price.
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)